Montag, 27. Januar 2014

Unia as a Model of False Unity Unia as a Model of False Unity: The Limits of Diversity within Unity- Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis

One
of the chief marks of the previous century – the twentieth – was the
Christian world's attempt to restore unity. After Papism fell away from
the Church at the beginning of the second millennium (1054) and then
the Protestant's subsequent breach with Papism in the 16th
century, East and West were deeply divided and the West was much divided
within itself. Yet the Church lost neither its unity nor its
catholicity – its wholeness: heresy and schism may wound and scar the
body of the Church but they do not divide it, just as a tree is not said
to be divided if someone clips off one of its branches. From this
viewpoint, the oft-used terms 'the undivided Church' of the first ten
centuries and 'the union of the churches' are incorrect. The Church is
ever undivided, be it after the schism of 1054 or any other schism
whatsoever. Moreover, there are not many churches needing to be brought
together: there is the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" alone,
whose life continues undivided and uninterrupted in the Eastern
Orthodox Church. Those heterodox Christians of the East and West who
have broken away, falling into heresy and schism, cannot be called
churches; they must instead seek union with the Church, denouncing
heresy and delusion. Unity is not achieved by 'uniting the churches',
but rather through 'union with the Church'.

Following
the schism, throughout the whole of the second millennium, many
attempts were made at achieving unity, in particular through the calling
of great synods aimed at unity such as those of Lyon (1274) and
Ferreira-Florence (1438-1439). Though union between the Orthodox and
the Papists was officially accepted at the later of these and almost all
of the Orthodox bishops in attendance signed the terms - with the
exception of Saint Mark of Ephesus and a few others - it remained
unapplied: nothing more than a simple piece of paper. These councils
did not aim at true Christian peace and unity - unity in truth; they did
not ground themselves on the true model of unity as is found in the
teaching of Christ, the Apostles and the Saints. Rather, like Unia,
they were based on newly invented, false models of unity which serve
ulterior motives – other malevolent, egotistical, autocratic, divisive
motives. These not only failed to help the cause of unity, but enlarged
the chasm and provoked new divisions. The members of the Joint
International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between Orthodox
and Roman Catholics concluded this unanimously at the sixth plenary
session of the Commission's General Assembly held at Freising, Germany
in June 1990. The text they signed reads as follows: "Unia as a
method – wherever it was applied - did not succeed in its aim of
bringing about rapprochement between the churches. Conversely, it
brought on new divisions. The situation that it created became the
cause of conflicts and trials which have left their mark on the
collective memory and consciousness of the two churches. Thus for
ecclesiological reasons the conviction that other methods should be
sought has been made firm." (¶ 6c)

Papal
and Patriarchal texts, studies produced by theologians and even the
Theological Dialogue itself create the chimerical impression that the
supposed new model of unity being sought after is the ecclesiological
model of 'sister churches'. In connection to this the aforementioned
Freising text writes: "Now that our Churches have come together on
the ecclesiological foundation of communion between sister churches, it
would be a grievous matter to destroy the excellent work toward the
unity of the Churches achieved through the Dialogue by returning to the
method of Unia." (¶ 6d) This model indeed applies when speaking
about relations between the local autocephalous churches of the Orthodox
Church, where conciliarity on both the local and international levels
prevents anyone from asserting universal jurisdiction not only over the
other patriarchs, but also over the ecumenical councils. The Vatican,
on the other hand, does not accept, nor is it going to accept, the
equality of the primates, or even that of the bishops, nor the supreme
authority of the ecumenical councils. Such is apparent from the
decisions of the Second Vatican Council as well as from its contemporary
declarations and actions, like the abolition of the Pope's ancient
title 'Patriarch of the West' which limits his jurisdiction topically.
Thus, the Vatican is deceiving us with the 'sister churches' model. In
reality it seeks a new Unia; a Unia that is broader and elastic, having
boundless diversity on matters of faith and life so long as the primacy
of the Pope is recognized.

Fundamentally,
this is the model espoused by the older version of Unia which allows
those Christians in union with Rome to maintain their own liturgical
rites, holy icons, vesture of clergy, and other customs and practices,
in some cases not even demanding unity in faith. Seeing that the first
model of unity that Papism used – that of Latinization – produced no
long-standing results (whether applied violently, as it was during the
Crusades, or through personal proselytism), the Jesuits invented the
deceptive method of Unia as a more effective means of bringing about
union with Rome. They did this despite the fact that Unia was neither a
holy nor true means of union; but for the Jesuits 'the end justifies
the means'. According to Christian ethics, however both the means and
the end must be holy. Unity of faith and worship cannot be sacrificed
in order to secure unity under the Pope, whose office is itself false
and contrary to the Gospel since it subverts the God-given and apostolic
model of administration – the synodical – to implement the absolute
monarchy of the Pope. True unity is achieved through unity of faith,
worship and administration: this is the model of unity in the ancient
Church, which the Orthodox Catholic Church has maintained unswervingly.
The method of Unia introduces a false unity, a unity in name only,
because, outside of the fact that it allows for unlimited diversity in
faith and worship, it is based on heretical ecclesiology since it
overturns the Church's synodical system of administration – a divine
institution – with the primacy of the Pope – a human institution. In
the Church, diversity is only permitted in secondary matters of local
tradition and practice, which do not touch on the fundamentals of faith
and worship and administration.

Those
who in our day adhere to and promote the true unity – unity in faith,
worship and administration – are troubled by what has been plotted and
packaged for us from above within the Theological Dialogue, without the
knowledge of the people. There at the Dialogue, as expressed in the
Ravenna text (which was also discussed in October 2009 in Cyprus) the
Papists lured the Orthodox into discussion of the imaginary universal
'primacy' of the Pope, without which no proposed union can be accepted
by Luciferian Papism.

We
have a new Unia at our doors; on account of this the co-chair of the
Dialogue's Mixed Committee, Cardinal Casper, expressed his satisfaction
at the fact that the Orthodox discussed the universal primacy of the
Pope in some form for the first time in centuries. We have been
deceived by the Vatican: there can be no union with the Papists without
the primacy of the Pope. For it to be otherwise they would have to
call an 'ecumenical council' to change their ecclesiology, to change the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church produced at Vatican II.
Even if the Roman Catholic theologians involved in the Dialogue were
convinced by the Orthodox and they signed a text rejecting any form of
Papal primacy, accepting that the Pope – along with the other Patriarchs
– are first in honour alone, and accepting that above all is the
authority of the Ecumenical Councils, this text would be immediately
rejected by Rome. It would be made to disappear, as if it had never
been produced. This is precisely what occurred with the Freising text
of 1990 which condemned Unia. Rome rejected it, it disappeared and Rome
lured us into the composition of a new text on Unia at Balamand,
Lebanon in 1993. There, a reduced Orthodox delegation (without
representation from six autocephalous churches) exonerated Unia along
with the Papist theologians so as to be in line with Vatican II, which
praises Unia, and so that it might remain a model for unity with the
Orthodox as per the Ravenna and Cyprus texts. Rome, therefore, accepts
only what is in line with its own innovations and rejects the things of
the Gospel and of the Church. Can this facade, this caricature of a
dialogue be considered a dialogue? Is it acceptable for us to
participate in an ostensible, false, disingenuious dialogue, a dialogue
whose outcome is already known: that is to say, the rejection of all
that does not agree with Papal dogma?

Since
the repose of Archbishop Seraphim, our ecclesiastical leadership's
stance on these matters has been disappointing. We have even arrived at
the point that many of us are considering invoking the 15th
canon of the First-Second Council (called by Saint Photios in 861),
which permits cessation of the commemoration of those bishops who are
not upholding Orthodoxy, just as was done in 1970 when Metropolitan
Augustinos of Florina, the ever-memorable Metropolitans Paul of
Paramythia and Ambrose of Elevtheropolous, and almost all of the
Monasteries of Mount Athos ceased commemoration of Patriarch
Athenagoras.

Though
the clouds of Ecumenism and Philo-Papism are yet thick, the horizon has
again begun to open - there are streams of light; there is the
Hierarchy of the Church of Greece's decision from last October to
provide guidelines for its representatives at the Theological Dialogue
in discussions of the Pope's 'primacy', returning it to the path of the
Holy Fathers; there is also your strong voice, your tireless and
unceasing action, Your Eminence [addressing Metropolitan Seraphim of
Piraeus]. Your boldness and outspokenness on a host of matters of faith
and life amazes us. Already you have been placed at the head of the
anti-Papal and anti-ecumenical struggle as today’s conference, taking
place under your patronage, proves; there are those amongst your fellow
bishops who signed the Confession of Faith against Ecumenism
together with you, and there are other bishops who did not sign but do
agree; there are the six hagiorite and a host of other monasteries –
male and female - who have signed; hundreds of abbots, hieromonks,
married clergy, monks, and thousands of laity who have signed and
continue to sign and who, surpassing every expectation, have flooded
this great auditorium tonight.

We
hope and believe that we will not be led into a new Unia, into the
recognition of the universal primacy of the Pope in any form. If,
however, the powerful and influential, the new Beccuses, Basserions, and
Isidores, impose this development, all of us, with God's help and the
prayers of the Most-Holy Theotokos and all the saints who have struggled
and confessed the faith, will once again quash it and ensure it is not
applied.

A Talk Given by Protopresbyter Theodoros Zisis ,Professor Emeritus of the Theological School of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, at the Metropolis of Piraeus' Conference on the Theme "‘Primacy,' Synodicality and the Unity of the Church"Peace and Friendship Stadium, 28 April 2010